Abstract
This study explored pre-service teachers’ knowledge and awareness of dialectical code switching in classroom settings. A Likert-type scale survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted as part of an embedded, mixed-methods research design. Twenty-two undergraduate students responded to the online survey and 28 volunteered to be interviewed by the researchers. Results indicated that pre-service teachers have limited knowledge of code switching but felt that nurturing a relationship with students, understanding their cultural backgrounds, and paying careful attention to linguistic differences can help students feel empowered and ultimately lead to successful learning experiences in the classroom.
Historically, African American English (AAE) has been referred to as Ebonics, Black English, ghetto English, street English, and slang (Craig, 2016). Interestingly, each of these terms stemmed from the struggle, survival, and identity of African Americans (Hall & Damico, 2007). Although an emphasis has been placed on bridging the gap between culture, language, and academic diversity, this emphasis has mainly targeted non-native language speakers such as Hispanics, Asians, Chinese, and Middle Easterners. Ironically, African Americans, as a group, have not been the focus of recognizing culture or bridging the gap between linguistic and academic diversity (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Particularly, the African American group has had a stigma to overcome because of the delicacy and sensitivity of addressing race and racism in the educational setting—the classroom (Cochran-Smith, 2004).
According to Anthony and Kritsonis (2006), teachers do not easily recognize how the African American culture and linguistic diversity affect their learning. In fact, several research studies have documented how White teachers are more inclined to categorize those students who speak AAE as lacking academic potential, lacking intelligence, and lacking social ability (Baugh, 1999; Cazden, 2001). Preparing teachers for cultural diversity in the classroom is vital because the negative response to dialects can be damaging and negate literacy learning (Godley, Sweetland, Wheeler, Minnici, & Carpenter, 2006). Consequently, once a teacher establishes professional beliefs about cultural and linguistic diversity gained from their own teaching experience, it is challenging to change those beliefs, particularly those beliefs that are related to the student’s personal identity (Bol & Berry, 2005; Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992). If educators intend to break the barriers of cultural and linguistic diversity of the African Americans, it is critical to learn about the antecessor of their culture and the origin of AAE.
History of AAE
According to Dillard (1972), AAE has been around for centuries. As such, there is historical evidence of AAE spoken dating back to the 1700s (Dillard, 1972). Researchers have concluded that the origin of AAE derived from slaves being removed suddenly and captured in large numbers and placed on ships to sail to the New World. Because the slaves were captured from various areas, the native languages that the slaves spoke were extremely diverse. In an effort to control revolts, slaves were kept isolated from others who spoke their language (Baugh, 1999). Furthermore, there was not one specific dominant language to learn on the ships; therefore, communication for the most basic needs was non-existent. Ultimately, it was the slaves’ own responsibility to adjust socially and linguistically to communicate with one another and with the White population in a foreign land (Fasold et al., 1987). Because of these circumstances, the slaves resorted to creating their own language to be able to communicate; hence the term pidgin evolved. Pidgin, in a sense, is a made-up language created when two or more languages are present and those languages are not known well or understood. Dillard (1972) posited that pidgin contains a type of lingua franca wherein it is essential for a larger group to communicate; however, none of the native languages are sufficient for communication. Pidgin is not a made-up language exclusive to the African American community. Each culture that expands to new areas creates their own type of pidgin language—a mixing of the dominant language with their own language for personal understanding. Several examples include French Creole, Hawaiian Island, and China Sea (Dillard, 1972). In essence, pidgin tends to dissipate or “rid itself of” the more significant features of language (Baugh, 1999). Thus, the pidgin language contains a shorter vocabulary and grammar and lexical structure is significantly reduced (Craig, 2016).
In some instances, AAE or Black English has been viewed in a negative way because it contains slang, omits standard grammar, and has a limited vocabulary. Unfortunately, if slaves were caught attempting to learn to read and to write, they faced harsh consequences such as beatings, amputations, and even death (Hall & Damico, 2007). Their unique linguistic form and lack of education led to many misconceptions including African Americans’ lack of intelligence, being ignorant, being lazy, and being less capable intellectually (Baugh, 1999). If these are misconceptions, why does the production of AAE continue? Baugh (1999) documents that the production of AAE is associated with the membership, identities, and solidarity to friends, family, and previous generations. As such, the adoption of Standard American English (SAE) can be seen as an abandonment of the Black culture (Baugh, 1999). On a broader level, Gee (2015) reported that humans seek out those that are like themselves, searching for similarity and seeking to understand something new by relating it to something old. Similarly, as research points out, culture is learned and ingrained in one’s individuality through experiences within the culture itself, practicing and using the language and interactions in a natural and meaningful context.
Importance of Recognizing Culture and Linguistics in Educational Settings
Students who cannot speak the predominant language in the classroom experience disadvantages in attempting to learn literacy and/or the academic content (Baugh, 1999; Fryer & Levitt, 2006). To overcome the language barrier and to help students become more academically successful, it is essential for teachers to learn about the students’ respective cultures and the languages that the students speak for the purpose of assessing and planning for the best way to teach culturally and linguistically diverse students (Fitzgerald & Graves, 2004/2005; Young & Hadaway, 2006). Vacca et al. (2015) noted that pre-service teachers should know that cultural diversity exists when students’ families, homes, cultures, socioeconomic statuses, and other societal differences appear differently from the dominant population of the school. According to Vacca et al. (2015), the language that the student feels most comfortable using is referred to as linguistic diversity; however, this language may not be the predominant language of the school.
Researchers have suggested several procedures to incorporate in the classroom for culturally and linguistically diverse students. It is imperative to provide “wait time” where culturally and linguistically diverse students can listen, process the information that is being taught, and ultimately use code-switching techniques naturally (Littlewood, 1984; Moll, 1989; Vacca et al., 2015; Vygotsky, 1978). For this reason, it is critical to create a conducive classroom environment where students feel safe, accepted, and comfortable enough to learn.
Ironically, the African American culture and AAE has been overlooked; therefore, the aforementioned procedures are less likely to be incorporated into the classroom setting for this group (Garcia Coll et al., 1996; McLoyd, 1998). Because of their pidgin linguistics or broken English, African Americans can experience a difficult time understanding the content that is presented. Thus, these students learn to read and understand a language different from their own language. When teachers speak a different language than the student uses, a mismatch often occurs between the students’ oral and written language; this occurrence can increase the possibility of impeding the child’s literacy progress (Baugh, 1999; Cazden, 2001; Charity, Scarborough, & Griffin, 2004; Fasold et al., 1987). These circumstances highlight how critical it is to understand that cultural and linguistic diversity can be large barriers to students comprehending and experiencing the world around them (Vacca et al., 2015). In essence, classroom teachers are vital to the transition between home literacies and standard literacies in English (Smith, 2018).
Educational Significance of Literacy and Dialect
Unequivocally, literacy is arguably one of the best predictors of adult success in life. Unfortunately, not all children and adults obtain the necessary literacy skills to function successfully in society (Iruka & Morgan, 2014). According to Kainz and Vernon-Feagans (2007), children’s literacy ability is a culmination of the child, family, classroom, and school input which is labeled as the literacy ecology. To completely understand a learner’s reading development, one would have to fully examine the literacy ecology surrounding the child. To illustrate, one in four children experience difficulties with basic reading and writing skills and at least 50% of adults are unable to read text (e.g., book, newspaper, Internet, and/or employment forms) written at an eighth-grade level (Chaney, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1996). As such, illiteracy is a large financial expenditure for taxpayers costing approximately 20 billion dollars annually (Chaney, 2014; United Way of America, 2010).
Early childhood literacy is crucial to bridging the gap between poverty and illiteracy (Vacca et al., 2015). The foundation of reading is oral language and it involves parents “talking with” their children rather than “talking at” their children. Interestingly, these oral conversations are the initial step in preparing children to read; this stage is also known as the first stage of emergent literacy. Ironically, researchers have found that students who organically speak AAE experience difficulties in code switching in classroom settings, thus, making it problematic to increase speaking proficiency (Greene & Walker, 2004). The attainment of emergent literacy skills is closely associated with children’s spoken language development. Children who begin school and struggle with verbal communication and have less exposure to literacy are more likely to have difficulties than those who come to school with stronger verbal abilities (Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, Cymerman, & Levine, 2002; Kainz and Vernon-Feagans, 2007; McCardle, Scarborough, & Catts, 2001).
Dialectical differences are known as deviations in languages and these deviations directly affect how children and adolescents learn how to read and write (Christian, 1997). As such, dialectical differences have unique language systems (Charity, 2008). Learning how to read involves the ability and flexibility to coordinate the processes of phonological and semantic information, reading, and comprehending the words (Cole, Duncan, & Blaye, 2014; Terry, 2012). As a result of several studies, researchers discovered that lower reading scores occurred in students who used native dialect in their language production (Gatlin & Wanzek, 2015, 2017). Cole et al. (2014) acknowledged how cognitive processes affect learning through the linguistic awareness/flexibility hypothesis. The linguistic awareness/flexibility hypothesis states “that a student’s ability or inability to vary dialect use in different contexts is more highly related to literacy performance” (Gatlin & Wanzek, 2017, p. 99). However, because literacy involves both reading and writing, Gatlin and Wanzek (2017) reported that further research is necessary to examine the effects of linguistic awareness/flexibility hypothesis on reading and comprehension.
Pittman, Malatesha Joshi, and Carreker (2014) conducted an 8-week study of systematic explicit instruction in spelling with 124 sixth-grade African American students in regular education. Going into the study, students were assured of the uniqueness of their language and that the instruction would not alter their dialect or oppose their culture in any way. In the study, students were given explicit instruction on how to spell Standard English with success. Results showed that students speaking AAE could improve and maintain the knowledge of spelling progress. For example, the process of helping students identify and practice phonemes within words helped students determine which words they omitted the ending sounds. In addition, one-on-one activities to assist students as they build phonological and morphological awareness could help struggling students (Horton-Ikard & Miller, 2004). As important as the instruction, it was acknowledged that teachers need to be knowledgeable and understand AAE features and be able to identify which features of AAE the students know to be able to better assist students (Pearson, Conner, & Jackson, 2013).
Acquisition of literacy skills can potentially be more difficult for those children who come from a background where dialects are mismatched to SAE (Charity et al., 2004; Terry, 2012). According to Terry (2012), a significant difference was found for those areas such as words that rhyme, letter and word recognition, and metalinguistic awareness skills. Moreover, the ability to monitor one’s own language, and repair speech when misunderstood, or adjust speaking to different audiences or in different contexts was also related to the frequency of a mismatch between dialects and Standard English (Terry, 2012).
Code Switching in the Classroom
Code switching is defined as the practical use of “two or more linguistics varieties” in the same context (Myers-Scotton & Ury, 1977, p. 5). Code switching is neither meaningless nor random; it is a linguistic tool and it involves concise awareness of how the student can alternate communicative conventions (Greene & Walker, 2004). For example, code switching can occur between SAE and AAE. In addition, code switching can include two tonal registers and/or the alternation between two languages (Greene & Walker, 2004). As such, code switching is used to “change one’s dialect production in response to external stylistic influences” (Craig, 2016, p. 60).
Interestingly, AAE reflects both the individual and the group and tends to bolster uniformity within the group (Dandy, 1991; Koch, Gross, & Kolts, 2001; Naremore, 1980; Smitherman, 1977). Thus, the use of AAE is meaningful and is considered to be a social process that operates on many levels (Greene & Walker, 2004). The inability to code switch can present literacy problems for students learning SAE (Craig, 2016). African American students have exhibited apparent breaks or gaps in their own understanding of appropriate use of academic verses non-academic use of language, language appropriateness, and language standards in the classroom (Greene & Walker, 2004). The mismatch between teachers teaching SAE and students who speak mainly AAE can hinder those students on assessments and instruction measures that examine literacy (Baugh, 1999). This information leads to ask the following question: How can we increase pre-service teachers’ awareness of how students use code switching in classroom settings?
To increase awareness of how students use code switching in the classroom, teachers should allow students to use their own native dialects (Siegel, 2007). Moreover, assisting students with code switching and having them understand the differences between SAE and AAE allows students to compare and contrast how the languages work at the grammatical level and “master the dialects that are valued in mainstream academic, civic, and economic institutions in the United States” (Godley, Carpenter, & Werner, 2007, p. 124); this provides students with the opportunity to apply and increase cognitive flexibility to coordinate words and comprehend them while reading and writing (Cole et al., 2014). A study conducted by Horton-Ikard and Miller (2004) that consisted of 22 adolescents confirmed AAE speakers from a predominantly African American community contained writing and language structures that traced back to AAE. More than a third of the adolescents in this study were found to have grammatical errors consistent with AAE, thus making it obvious that language differences should be addressed systematically and explicitly with students.
It is imperative that teachers convey to students that negotiating between SAE and AAE is not an attack on their own identity or culture, but it can be an opportunity to expand their linguistic skills and function with society (Greene & Walker, 2004). In other words, this expansion of students’ linguistic process does not include devaluing the students’ native language in any form; rather, it increases awareness and builds upon their existing knowledge. With this in mind, incorporating discussions about all languages, non-mainstream and mainstream SAE might allow students to view the different dialects as a resource (Godley et al., 2007).
In essence, code switching in the classroom involves teachers using a new lens to view language and dialects as formal and informal designations instead of identifying students’ language use as either “right” or “wrong” (Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993). Acknowledging cultural norms and differences will enable teachers to be more reflective and reexamine their own attitudes and beliefs about the linguistic process by becoming more receptive and informed of the different cultures, dialects, and language communities (Greene & Walker, 2004). In the next section, we decided to examine our own pre-service teachers’ awareness of dialectical code switching in classroom settings as a result of our research.
Our Teacher Education Program
The Teacher Education program is a 4-year teacher preparation program at an accredited regional institution in the southeastern part of the United States. The program offers certifications in early childhood to sixth grade, fourth through eighth grade, and secondary certifications, all of which include core subject areas such as English, language arts, math, science, and social studies. In addition, certifications in special education, music, art, Spanish, and kinesiology are offered. Most of the courses are offered in face-to-face settings with a few courses offered in a hybrid or online format. The program is approximately 120 or more credit hour degree depending on the specific certifications. Students take pedagogy and early childhood courses in Phase I; content and methods courses with field experience, proficiency exams, and classroom management courses with field experience in Phase II; and clinical teaching in Phase III. The clinical teaching phase spans 13 weeks in the classroom or one entire semester. Students are given the opportunity to complete field work in local public schools with a variety of demographics throughout their course work and into their clinical teaching.
Our Research Purpose and Questions
The literature review has revealed that educators are aware of the educational significance of recognizing culture and linguistic differences in schools. To extend this further, we hypothesized that if pre-service teachers have an understanding and recognize the benefits of using strategies to help learners code switch, teachers may be able to assist those students with literacy skills needed to aid in their language development. Consequently, our research team set out to gauge pre-service teachers’ awareness of dialectical code switching in classroom settings in our own Teacher Education Program. As many of the prospective teachers who were part of this study would soon be teachers serving in the profession as licensed educators, we felt that this study was necessary in examining our own pre-service teachers’ readiness to help students from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Two research questions guided this study:
Method
An embedded mixed-methods research design was used to collect data for this study. According to Creswell (2015), embedded mixed-methods research designs require that both qualitative and quantitative data are collected and analyzed separately. This practice allows the researchers to determine whether both sets of data complement, converge, or diverge, allowing the researchers opportunities to classify and categorize developing and emerging themes. The two types of data collected were from an online survey using Likert-type scale questions and semi-structured focus group interviews with small groups of students.
Participants
For research purposes, we will refer to undergraduate student participants in this research study as pre-service teachers, or prospective teachers, so as not to confuse the participants of this study with students in K-12 classroom settings. Currently, there are 131 pre-service teachers enrolled in the undergraduate teacher preparation program, approximately 50 of whom were currently in the clinical teaching phase, also referred to as the student teaching Phase III. The clinical teaching phase included all prospective teachers who have had their basic core courses, methods, and subject area courses. All students in Phase III, clinical teaching, students who had successfully completed all core courses were invited to participate in the study.
All participants in this study included pre-service, prospective elementary, middle, and high school teachers. All participants were recruited voluntarily. Twenty-two total respondents completed the survey, 19 of whom were female students making up 86.36% of the population. There were three male student respondents which made up 13.64% of the total population. As such, the female to male ratio of participants was representative of the total population of students in the program. Of the 22 students who completed the online survey, 14 or 63.64% were of Caucasian descent, five or 22.73% were of African American descent, two students or 9.09% indicated that they were of Hispanic descent, and one student or 4.55% specified “Other.”
In terms of pre-service teachers’ classification, participants who identified themselves as prospective elementary and high school teachers made up 14 students total, both elementary and high school making up seven students each, comprising 63.64% of the total population. Prospective middle school teachers made up eight students or 36.36% of the population. The researchers did not collect demographic data for the open-ended, semi-structured interviews because volunteers participated immediately after face-to-face class sessions. It was our intent to gain the best representative sample from the target population without pre-determining a specific group of pre-service teachers to interview.
Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collection
The purpose of the online survey was to gain general information regarding the knowledge and awareness that pre-service teachers had of dialectical code switching. The online survey was built in a software program built named ©Qualtrics to collect quantitative and qualitative data collection for research studies. The survey included three demographic questions and additional questions included in a Likert-type scale format ranging from not aware to very aware. In brief, the degree of agreement by participants that indicated very aware allowed the researchers to investigate which items they identified they personally had knowledge of in terms of helping students learn to code switch in classroom settings. The survey questions were derived from Dr. Holly Craig’s research on literacy and the achievement gap in the last couple of decades dating as far back as the mid-1990s. The online survey was sent 3 times total through email to collect a representative sample of the target population studied.
Follow-up interviews were voluntary and conducted using purposeful sampling for those participants willing to be interviewed. The open-ended, semi-structured interviews consisted of three questions that were devised by the researchers generated from Dr. Craig’s research. Participants answered candidly to interview questions. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and cross-checked for clarity and accuracy. The interview questions included the following:
Do you think pre-service teachers should be aware of code switching?
Do you believe an understanding of code switching is overlooked in classrooms?
Do you believe African Americans are perceived as being less educated when speaking African American Vernacular English?
Validity, Reliability, and Trustworthiness
The online survey and interview questions were reviewed for clarity and specificity by subject matters experts in the field. The purpose for reviewing the survey instrument was to clarify any possible misinterpretations of the survey questions as they were presented. Clarity of survey items and specificity were important to review to ensure that the survey questions were reliable and clear, avoiding ambiguous or standardized language (Creswell, 2015). Validity of the survey instrument and interview questions were piloted to a small group of subject matter experts prior to survey deployment. The responses to the pilot survey corroborated that the scores from the instrument were valid (Creswell, 2015).
Provisions of trustworthiness were established through independent reviews of both forms of data by the researchers. The researchers triangulated the data to determine how both sources of data compared and contrasted to determine the phenomenon between them.
Quantitative and Qualitative Data Analysis
The online survey was analyzed using ©Qualtrics, a research software, to quantify basic demographic information and percentages on the Likert-type scale. The data were organized by identifying and bolding the top three items that respondents indicated they were very aware. Similarly, the data were identified by bolding the three items that respondents indicated they were not aware. The Likert-type scale data were cross-checked and analyzed by the investigators for accuracy.
The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis as part of the grounded theory approach in qualitative research (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Thematic analysis was used to gauge students’ awareness and knowledge, understanding, and perceptions of dialectical code switching in classroom settings. Themes from the qualitative data were categorized and organized as they emerged naturally within the transcriptions and reported in the findings. All themes were cross-analyzed by the investigators independently to confirm that themes revealed represented those opinions of the participants thus supporting the phenomenon between them.
Findings
The online survey was completed by 22 out of 70 (31.4%) prospective teachers in the field. Table 1 shows the number of participants that indicated awareness or some knowledge of code switching as well as those that had no knowledge of code switching. Table 2 shows the items surveyed and their scaled averages. The three bolded numbers on the right-side of the table indicate the items students selected they were very aware. Similarly, the three bolded numbers with the highest rankings on the left-side of the table indicate the items that students indicated they were not aware. Twenty-eight of 70 (40%) students volunteered to participate in the semi-structured, face-to-face interviews.
Response Percent and Count Representing Pre-Service Teachers’ Awareness of Code Switching.
Pre-Service Teachers’ Rankings for Awareness and Knowledge of Code-Switching Resources.
Note. Bolded numbers identify the largest numbers for each ranking. The number in parenthesis indicates the ordinal place of the ranking in the top two or three for that ranking. Likert-type scale items ranged from 1 = not aware to 3 = very aware. AAE = African American English.
Knowledge and Awareness of Code Switching
The quantitative data from this study suggested that pre-service teachers’ knowledge and awareness of code switching in classroom settings varied. Ranked items that indicated very aware consisted of pre-service teachers’ awareness (a) of students’ ability to learn how to code switch, (b) that students can make situationally appropriate choices when using language, (c) that students can recognize that a mismatch may exist between SAE and AAE, and (d) that students may be unaware of their own dialect and that of SAE. Pre-service teachers are mostly aware that students can learn to code switch and may not recognize the difference between their own dialects and that of Standard English.
Many pre-service teachers were not aware of resources available to them and their students to help students learn to code switch as evidenced by Items 1, 3, and 5 in Table 2. In summary, pre-service teachers do not know there are specific resources that address strategies for helping students who speak different dialects, including AAE. Similarly, prospective teachers are not very aware of programs such as ©Toggle Talk that help students transition from “home” to standard language. Furthermore, the data suggest that pre-service teachers are not familiar with the research available to help students learn to code switch in classroom settings.
While a majority of students indicated they were somewhat aware or very aware of many of the ranked items, there were still some variability and inconsistencies in the participants’ responses. For Item 1, most students (86.36%) were somewhat aware or not aware of books and resources available to help students learn to code switch; however, most prospective teachers believed students had the ability to learn how to code switch in Item 2 (86.36%). Items 3 (86.36%) and 5 (100%) indicated that many students were not abreast of the research or programs available to help them as they assist their students who speak other languages when it comes to code switching. However, many pre-service teachers indicated that they were somewhat aware or very aware of code switching and believed they could help their students develop skills to make choices in terms of language usage, as shown in Items 4 (86.36%) and 6 (95.46%). A majority of pre-service teachers were unaware that learning to code switch in early elementary grades could affect or improve literacy; this finding was apparent in Item 9 when not aware and somewhat aware responses were combined (81.82%). Furthermore, findings for Item 8 (50.00%) indicated that most pre-service teachers were somewhat aware that students who were able to code switch could experience academic gains than those whom did not learn to code switch (Craig, 2016). A large number of pre-service teachers were aware that there was a mismatch between academic and non-academic language and they believed that students were unaware of these differences also, as indicated in Items 7 (77.27%) and 10 (95.46%).
Student Perceptions of the Importance of Code Switching in Classroom Settings
The first of the semi-structured, open-ended interview questions asked whether pre-service teachers thought that they [themselves] should be aware of code switching. All 28 out of 28 (100%) respondents indicated that teachers should be aware of code switching, although only some of the respondents were aware of the concept. One participant stated, “You have to be able to reach students in the classroom and their linguistic needs,” and another participants shared, “Yes, I would say that pre-service teachers should be aware of code switching . . . When we dive into our own special vernaculars, we speak in our own dialectical backgrounds.” These comments reveal that pre-service teachers identified with benefits of code switching in teaching and learning.
The second interview question asked pre-service teachers if they believed an understanding of code switching was overlooked in classrooms. Out of 28 interviews, only one respondent was unsure whether code switching was overlooked; these results indicated that 96.4% of students believed that teachers overlooked strategies for code switching in classroom settings. Participants who shared this perspective stated, “When we hear students say something incorrectly, we just correct them instead of encouraging them . . . ” Another responded indicated, “Teachers are too busy focused on the curriculum and academics than the social aspect of helping the students.” Other respondents stated, “Yes, because people don’t understand it. Without understanding it, people will not look into it.” These responses indicate that teaching strategies for code switching from their native tongue to the standard tongue were overlooked because teachers were unsure of how they could help their students. The interviews revealed that pre-service teachers valued and respected the cultures of their students.
The third interview question asked whether African Americans were perceived as less educated when speaking AAE. Nineteen of 28 pre-service teachers indicated “yes,” one respondent indicated “unsure,” and eight students indicated “no” in the interviews. One respondent stated, “Yes, they associate that language with being ignorant or less educated which is not true.” Another respondent shared, “People think they were not given the same opportunity as everyone else.” Other responses pointed to the cultural norms and customs that influence literacy and language development and stated comments such as, “We should look beyond our comfort zones and continue learning, enriching, and embracing all cultures.” Another participant shared, “When you disrespect their language, you disrespect their heritage.” One respondent had a similar comment to share that pointed toward cultural and linguistic awareness: I do, which does a disservice to those speakers who actually represent a diverse spectrum of education and knowledge. But, historically speaking, we see this same stereotype applied to various minority groups within the mainstream culture, such as Irish Americans in the early 20th century, Cockney British speakers, and certainly Southern and rural Americans. I especially appreciate new African American authors such as Samantha Irby and Roxanne Gay who write highly educated, witty memories while occasionally employing AAVE, which to me, represents and honors their backgrounds. This type of inclusive demonstration of code switching should eventually help educate others that all of our various, regional dialects have value and meaning and should be celebrated as one of our many rich cultural differences.
Overall, responses from the final interview question indicated that different dialects that students speak may produce an undesirable impression to people outside of that particular culture.
Implications for Practice
The findings from this study reveal that pre-service teachers have limited knowledge about code switching in terms of resources and programs available to help their students; however, pre-service teachers were very aware or somewhat aware that students could learn to code switch for situationally appropriate reasons. Also, many teachers were aware that they could teach students to learn to switch from their own dialect, such as AAE, to SAE. Based on the findings from Research Question 1, many teachers were unaware of the long-term impact and benefits of helping students learn about their own dialect and ability to code switch.
Some pre-service teachers indicated that they were not aware of code switching or its benefits because they did not grow up around students from other cultures and backgrounds; however, they were interested and wanted more interaction with the concept in their academic careers. Pre-service teachers also reported that incorporating strategies that address students from other cultures would help keep students engaged and potentially address some of the challenges of code switching in the classroom. Furthermore, many of the participants felt that strategies for code switching needed to be shared in classrooms and educator preparation programs so educators will know about and learn how to access tools and resources available to them.
When asked if code switching was important for teachers to understand in Research Question 2, pre-service teachers acknowledged that nurturing a relationship with students, understanding their cultural backgrounds, and taking time out to teach in a variety of ways will help students feel safe and empowered. Some respondents shared that AAE-speaking students may not grasp lessons at the same pace as other students, but expressed that knowing and understanding diverse cultures was necessary to connect and understand student needs. Connecting with students through their culture was deemed a way to make students feel safe in the classroom. Participants mentioned in the interviews that helping teachers and students build strategies for code switching in classroom settings is vital to the future success of learners of varying backgrounds.
Pre-service teachers were also aware that strategies for code switching is a method that students are not too familiar with, but recognize that it is tied with their literacy development. Although many respondents were not fully aware of the impact of dialectical code switching in literacy development, they learned that resources were ultimately available for themselves and their students. Based on the findings of this study, it is possible to help bridge the language gap if students are given time to process and learn to code switch in classroom settings. Without such knowledge and process time, students may not perform as well as native language speakers of English.
Limitations
One such limitation was that the data came from one program at one institution. Participant bias could be favorable or unfavorable considering their experience in the specific program in which they are enrolled. Furthermore, additional study participants could be surveyed during their time in their methods and pedagogy courses. Although no indication of this occurred, students in the internship courses may not fully recall those activities during their program that discussed students who might need or benefit from code switching in classroom settings.
Another limitation of this research lies in the population of this study. The researchers did not ask the interviewees whether they had participated in the online survey. Therefore, it was not clear whether the online survey participants were also part of the interviews. Although this does not pose a major limitation, it could have made common themes or threads clearer. Through the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data, the researchers were able to gain a broad perspective of the pre-service teachers’ knowledge and awareness of research, activities, and programs and their importance when working with students of other cultures in the classroom. The goal was to gain a broad picture perspective on their knowledge and awareness of code switching in classroom settings.
Implications for Future Research
Several findings from this study are prime for future research opportunities. As the study was conducted at one university in one program only, it would be beneficial to survey and interview other teacher education programs with similar and diverse populations from urban, suburban, and rural institutions. There may be programs that serve a more diversified population and as such, provide in-depth preparation on linguistic and cultural norms. This study could be replicated at other institutions to expand and generalize the findings to the broader context.
Interviewing current educators to determine their awareness of code switching in classroom settings and comparing those responses to pre-service teachers’ responses would be a logical follow-up to this study. Further analysis to include the impact of code switching on miscue analysis and other aspects of literacy would further dissect the change in disposition that teachers must undergo to understand students and their ability to code switch (Karlin, 1985). In addition, surveying students to gauge their ability to code switch from AAE to SAE, for example, and the process they must go through would be helpful in understanding how teachers can employ strategies to help students make that transition.
Conclusion
Based on our findings, students would benefit from exposure to code switching in the classroom by knowledgeable teachers who can, ultimately, assist students in learning how to communicate with different audiences for different purposes (Brennan, 2018; Smith, 2018). “Because dialect plays a significant and unrecognized role in the reading achievement of school children” (Brennan, 2018, p. 19), attempting to narrow the gap between White and Black students not only involves acknowledging the home dialect, but it includes a thorough examination of the students’ cultural background, as well (Brennan, 2018). It is imperative that educators understand that lessons are more effective when supported by rich cultural and linguistical practices that are closely woven with the students’ community and cultural norms, which, in turn, helps pre-service teachers to cultivate and develop more culturally sensitive practices (Craig, 2016). Pre-service teachers not only need to be introduced to resources and programs to become more knowledgeable in code switching as part of their preparation program, but it is essential for pre-service teachers to fully examine the historical relevance of AAE and other dialects and to incorporate strategies for helping students code switch when necessary in the classroom. Engaging pre-service teachers in language study, informing them through readings and research, participation in observations and documentation can assist future teachers to support all children as “meaning makers and learners” (Goodman, 2006, p. 154). The language and dialect that children bring to the classroom can be seen as a resource and addition to the classroom and present the opportunity to vary their discourses (Gee, 2015). Incorporating cultural and linguistic factors into the classroom will help boost empirically driven pedagogy in code switching which is supported by the linguistic and early education research communities (Craig, 2016, p. 135).
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Research and Sponsored Programs Office at Lamar University (2017-2018).
